Ched Evans

[beorhthelm]

they reached the verdict that she was too drunk for consent in the circumstances.

 

[Acker79]

On a lot of what's being discussed we're speculating and hypothesising, but not that much on this point. The judge summarized that she was not able to give consent, and there's no reason why that point alone applied to Evans and not McDonald.

The judge gave them two options to find them guilty, that she did not consent, or that she was unable to (e.g. too drunk to realise what she was doing). His summary isn't necessarily the exact reasoning of the jury, because, as you say:

There's no guarantee that each member of the jury would have the same reason for reaching the verdict they did.

Exactly. That's roughly what I believe the jury has decided, and what 'spring hall convert' was saying, but you disagreed and said "I don't believe that the jury felt he could assume consent given the circumstances, but assume she was aware of what she was consenting to, given the circumstances. A subtle difference, but an important one in this case."

Yes, because spring hall said "That's not true. The reason that McDonald could reasonably believe that he had consent is that he had a prior relationship (non-sexual) with the girl and she went willingly with him to the room. Even though she was intoxicated the jury believed that McDonald could reasonably assume consent. I am personally comfortable with that." suggesting the simple fact she went to the hotel was enough for him to assume consent.

My 'subtle difference' is that there was more of an expression of consent, the acting on autopilot meant there was more from her to his justify his assumption than simply entering a room together, that this behaviour constitutes giving consent in an aware enough person. That the circumstances of their getting to the hotel made it reasonable enough that he believed he genuinely had consent when she unwittingly gave it, or that it gave enough doubt for them to find him not guilty, but the circumstances of Ched arriving there didn't make it reasonable for him to assume she was wittingly giving her consent, or didn't provide enough doubt to find him not guilty.

So you'd find him not guilty then, because 'probably' isn't enough.

I don't know how I'd find him without sitting through the whole trial. My 'probably' was more to allow wiggle room in that it wasn't absolutely obvious when paired with getting in a taxi and going back to a hotel room alone to allow macdonald's assumption to be reasonable, while remaining unreasonable for someone who has just snuck into the room uninvited to judge the behaviour than to suggest an actual judgement of her behaviour.

Well maybe someone said something like that, but certainly not me. I'm mostly debating the legal issue of a jury being certain that she didn't give consent and being certain that he knew she hadn't, and whether it's possible for a person in his position to know if he's innocent or not.

My 'some people' was a simple 'I can't remember who, but I'm sure someone said...' not a 'Some people you know who you are *nudge nudge*' accusation.

I haven't disagreed with that.

Geez, this isn't all about you, y'know.

This read to me like Drew was suggesting Ched did know.

Of course he can know he is innocent as a matter of fact. He was there, the jury, the media, you and I weren't. He knows whether the girl agreed to sex or not. He knows if whether or not she was a very active participant or whether she was virtually comatose. His argument has never been that he presumed consent, it is that she agreed to sex and that is substantiated by McDonald.

But on re-reading it, I suppose the initial 'he can know' could be more of a "me might he, might not" rather than a "he does".

 

[Triggaaar]

I believe it's been pointed out to you already.

Someone has said they have to review the case, and I've already said ok, so where's the problem there?

And even on that point, the CCRC are looking into it, because legal mistakes do get made, and no one here has declared that they're a legal expert in a position to say that there's nothing the CCRC can do.

 

[beardy gull]

Someone has said they have to review the case, and I've already said ok, so where's the problem there?

And even on that point, the CCRC are looking into it, because legal mistakes do get made, and no one here has declared that they're a legal expert in a position to say that there's nothing the CCRC can do.

You asked me to pick just one point and explain why it was nonsense. The fact that another poster has already pointed out to you that what you said was nonsense doesn't change the fact that it was. Anyway, I'm out of this thread. Up the Albion.

 

[Triggaaar]

You asked me to pick just one point and explain why it was nonsense. The fact that another poster has already pointed out to you that what you said was nonsense doesn't change the fact that it was. Anyway, I'm out of this thread. Up the Albion.

So what you've pointed out, is that when I make a mistake I immediately accept it. Excellent, thanks for that. Bye.

 

[Triggaaar]

My 'subtle difference' is that there was more of an expression of consent, the acting on autopilot meant there was more from her to his justify his assumption than simply entering a room together, that this behaviour constitutes giving consent in an aware enough person. That the circumstances of their getting to the hotel made it reasonable enough that he believed he genuinely had consent when she unwittingly gave it, or that it gave enough doubt for them to find him not guilty

I agree - you've just gone into more detail than 'spring hall' about why he had reason to believe he she had consented, even though she was in no position to do so (she was too drunk), but that's not what you said.

Perhaps you've just constructed your sentence poorly, because to me: "I don't believe that the jury felt he could assume consent given the circumstances, but assume she was aware of what she was consenting to, given the circumstances." clearly means you think the jury think 'she was aware of what she was consenting to'.

 

[Acker79]

I agree - you've just gone into more detail than 'spring hall' about why he had reason to believe he she had consented, even though she was in no position to do so (she was too drunk), but that's not what you said.

Perhaps you've just constructed your sentence poorly, because to me: "I don't believe that the jury felt he could assume consent given the circumstances, but assume she was aware of what she was consenting to, given the circumstances." clearly means you think the jury think 'she was aware of what she was consenting to'.

Sorry, no, I meant "I don't believe that the jury felt he could assume consent given the circumstances, but [that he could] assume she was aware of what she was consenting to, given the circumstances." The former implying he just had his way with her because he assumed he could, the latter implying he thought she had had indicated he could have his way.

 

[drew]

The jury were obviously convinced from the evidence given by various witnesses as well as video evidence that the girl was drunk - what others may think has been proven is irrelevant. Not sure why you make that comment as where has anyone said she wasn't drunK? It is the degree of how drunk she was that is in question.

As regards how to judge whether it was reasonable to assume consent then this goes back to the circumstances - man walks into a room where a drunk girl he's never seen before is having sex with a friend - the friend stops having sex with the girl and leaves, the man immediately takes over from his friend in engaging in sexual activity.

You and other individuals may think that in such circumstances the assumption that the girl gave consent is perfectly reasonable - I would suggest that the majority of men and women wouldn't think so and that the 12 men and women on the jury obviously didn't as they found Evans guilty.

I am really struggling with this because it appears that McDonald, who only met the girl just as he was getting a taxi back to the hotel, ie, when she was already drunk, is acquitted. The argument seems to be that he could presume consent because she got in the cab and later said 'you won't leave me' yet the girl, who by all accounts hadn't had anything further to drink was probably in the same condition as when Evans watched her and McDonald have sex. So, presumably, she was aware he was there, and when she asked Evans to join in (or Evans asked and she agreed) Evans is supposed to be able to tell that she doesn't then have the capacity to actually consent despite the fact that he has just watch her having sex and she has verbally agreed to him having sex. What exactly is the difference that makes one get acquitted and one not?

If the Jury believe that she could have said yes without actually knowing what she was doing then surely they should come to the same conclusion with regard to her actions when she was with McDonald? How can they say she knew what she was doing when she said 'I'm coming with you' and 'you won't leave me' quotes but then later she's gone from being drunk to also being incapacitated, although not to such an extent that she wasn't able to say yes and then engaged in sex with Evans.

With regard to your reference to circumstances, it wasn't the way you described that gives the assumption she gave consent, it is the evidence from Evans and McDonald that she agreed. The sordidness of the events are irrelevant. I would also point out that your description of events are misleading. You make it sound like McDonald left before Evans and the girl had sex however, the details in the judgement of the appeal court states that McDonald left after half an hour. It is not stated that Evans left at the same time but it might be implied it wasn't long after as they met up outside. Also the fact that McDonald told the porter to look out for the girl in the room because she was sick would, to some, suggest that at that time she was alone.

It still comes down the the fact there is enough doubt not to convict.

 

[Triggaaar]

Sorry, no, I meant "I don't believe that the jury felt he could assume consent given the circumstances, but [that he could] assume she was aware of what she was consenting to, given the circumstances." The former implying he just had his way with her because he assumed he could, the latter implying he thought she had had indicated he could have his way.

No wonder we're in a mess, that's bloody confusing.

 

[Triggaaar]

I am really struggling with this because it appears that McDonald, who only met the girl just as he was getting a taxi back to the hotel, ie, when she was already drunk, is acquitted. The argument seems to be that he could presume consent because she got in the cab and later said 'you won't leave me'

Just to be clear, the argument isn't that he 'could presume consent', but that it's not beyond doubt that he couldn't.

If the Jury believe that she could have said yes without actually knowing what she was doing then surely they should come to the same conclusion with regard to her actions when she was with McDonald? How can they say she knew what she was doing when she said 'I'm coming with you' and 'you won't leave me' quotes

That's not what they're saying. Maybe she didn't know what she was doing then either, but they can understand why McDonald thought he had consent, as she'd done more than simply say yes. I'll also add, that it's not a definite fact that she said yes, that is just testimony from the witnesses, whereas 'you're not going to leave' (or whatever it was) was witnessed by the porter.

then later she's gone from being drunk to also being incapacitated, although not to such an extent that she wasn't able to say yes and then engaged in sex with Evans.

I've covered the first bit (her drunken state hasn't necessarily changed), but I'll add that it's not a fact that she engaged (with much movement etc) in sex.

 

[Creaky]

Just to be clear, the argument isn't that he 'could presume consent', but that it's not beyond doubt that he couldn't.

That's not what they're saying. Maybe she didn't know what she was doing then either, but they can understand why McDonald thought he had consent, as she'd done more than simply say yes.

More accurately the argument is not whether or not Evans or McDonald believed the girl consented but whether or not a reasonable person in the same situation would presume consent.

 

[drew]

Just to be clear, the argument isn't that he 'could presume consent', but that it's not beyond doubt that he couldn't.

That's not what they're saying. Maybe she didn't know what she was doing then either, but they can understand why McDonald thought he had consent, as she'd done more than simply say yes. I'll also add, that it's not a definite fact that she said yes, that is just testimony from the witnesses, whereas 'you're not going to leave' (or whatever it was) was witnessed by the porter.

I've covered the first bit (her drunken state hasn't necessarily changed), but I'll add that it's not a fact that she engaged (with much movement etc) in sex.

Sorry but I still don't accept, on the basis of what you refer to, that, in my mind, would mean there is the possibility that McDonald could presume consent any more than Evans could. Probably going back to one of my very first posts but either the jury should have found them both guilty or both not guilty. Don't forget, the jury would have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Evans couldn't presume consent (bearing in mind in his and McDonald's evidence, she consented and was an active participant and there is no evidence whatsoever to refute that!).

 

[dazzer6666]

Sorry but I still don't accept, on the basis of what you refer to, that, in my mind, would mean there is the possibility that McDonald could presume consent any more than Evans could. Probably going back to one of my very first posts but either the jury should have found them both guilty or both not guilty. Don't forget, the jury would have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Evans couldn't presume consent (bearing in mind in his and McDonald's evidence, she consented and was an active participant and there is no evidence whatsoever to refute that!).

The jury will have considered evidence we don't (and can't possibly) know about, including how the defendants appeared in court. Part of their decision will have been based on whether they believed what they were being told (particularly with the lack of forensics), this doesn't have to be the same for both and may have had a bearing on the outcome.

 

[Triggaaar]

Sorry but I still don't accept, on the basis of what you refer to, that, in my mind, would mean there is the possibility that McDonald could presume consent any more than Evans could.

Why? You have to acknowledge that their situations were different.

Probably going back to one of my very first posts but either the jury should have found them both guilty or both not guilty.

As above, their situations were different.

Don't forget, the jury would have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Evans couldn't presume consent (bearing in mind in his and McDonald's evidence, she consented and was an active participant and there is no evidence whatsoever to refute that!).

There is nothing to back it up either, and the jury watched the defendants give their testimony and presumably didn't believe it. The two friends are obviously extremely close to have engaged in what they did, so if the girl was not at all active and clearly too drunk to know what was happening it's possible the friends would back each other up by suggesting she was more willing and active than she was. I'm not suggesting that's what happened, but it could have, and you can't count the defendants testimony as gospel. I have made it clear that I don't see how the jury could have been sure that Evans didn't have consent, but I certainly see how Evans and McDonald were not in the same situation, so it would be possible to convict one and not the other.

 

[drew]

The jury will have considered evidence we don't (and can't possibly) know about, including how the defendants appeared in court. Part of their decision will have been based on whether they believed what they were being told (particularly with the lack of forensics), this doesn't have to be the same for both and may have had a bearing on the outcome.

I accept that but those on this forum can only base their opinion on what is in the public domain. Evans may have been very nervous on the stand and a competent prosecuting barrister would make it his job to make him look guilty and McDonald may have come across differently but you are right, we weren't there so we don't know.

 

[dazzer6666]

I accept that but those on this forum can only base their opinion on what is in the public domain. Evans may have been very nervous on the stand and a competent prosecuting barrister would make it his job to make him look guilty and McDonald may have come across differently but you are right, we weren't there so we don't know.

Exactly......only the jury and court officials have any idea really. He may well have been nervous. He may have been an arrogant c@ck. Who knows.

 

[aolstudios]

Nicely summed up...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...upport-Ched-Evans-shows-learned-football.html

 

[drew]

Why? You have to acknowledge that their situations were different.
As above, their situations were different.

There is nothing to back it up either, and the jury watched the defendants give their testimony and presumably didn't believe it. The two friends are obviously extremely close to have engaged in what they did, so if the girl was not at all active and clearly too drunk to know what was happening it's possible the friends would back each other up by suggesting she was more willing and active than she was. I'm not suggesting that's what happened, but it could have, and you can't count the defendants testimony as gospel. I have made it clear that I don't see how the jury could have been sure that Evans didn't have consent, but I certainly see how Evans and McDonald were not in the same situation, so it would be possible to convict one and not the other.

I do acknowledge that the situations were different but not that they were so different that one has an element of doubt and the other doesn't. Even though the situations were different, was the condition of the the girl that different from the time McDonald had sex with her to the time Evans did? Is the idea that McDonald could presume consent just because he knew she got in the cab and said a couple of things much different from someone presuming consent because they went to dinner with someone for first time they had a few drinks, he makes sure she gets home but then she makes the mistake, in a slightly slurred voice, of inviting him in for coffee.

If the law is stating that there is a difference between being drunk and being drunk and incapacitated then surely the point at which you are able to presume consent is at the point when you start having sex, not based on events leading up to that! If the jury decided that Evans could not presume consent because, as a reasonable man, he could see the condition the girl was in then so should the same level of judgement be applied to McDonald at the time he was about to engage in sex with her. It is double standards.

 

[Steve.S]

I do acknowledge that the situations were different but not that they were so different that one has an element of doubt and the other doesn't. Even though the situations were different, was the condition of the the girl that different from the time McDonald had sex with her to the time Evans did? Is the idea that McDonald could presume consent just because he knew she got in the cab and said a couple of things much different from someone presuming consent because they went to dinner with someone for first time they had a few drinks, he makes sure she gets home but then she makes the mistake, in a slightly slurred voice, of inviting him in for coffee.

If the law is stating that there is a difference between being drunk and being drunk and incapacitated then surely the point at which you are able to presume consent is at the point when you start having sex, not based on events leading up to that! If the jury decided that Evans could not presume consent because, as a reasonable man, he could see the condition the girl was in then so should the same level of judgement be applied to McDonald at the time he was about to engage in sex with her. It is double standards.

You miss the point completely, McDonald and the girl met and made the decision to go back to the hotel. The inference from that is that two consenting adults decided to maybe have sex. Most people know that drink takes a while to kick in, but the fact is that these two met. Evan let himself into a room, where one could ask, who invited him? What was he doing there and at that time what state was the girl in, did she know that Evans was even in the room? She has no recollection of sleeping with Evans, therefore after hearing the evidence, the jury decided that she could not give consent and therefore it was rape. Macdonald picked her up, therefore it was more of a grey area of doubt as she consented to get into the taxi and go back to the hotel.

 

[drew]

Nicely summed up...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...upport-Ched-Evans-shows-learned-football.html

It's actually a load of regurgitated garbage. Bruce had not 'pledged' his support for Evans. He has commented on the case, presumably because some hack asked the question. He has expressed his opinion that he thinks there are grounds for an appeal just as Patrick Collins has formed the opinion that Evans is definitely a rapist. Bruce may well have phoned Oldham to offer support but that is hardly making a pledge!

Collins claims Evans was eventually persuaded to issue a statement about the events. That certainly suggests that in his mind it was Evans that was refusing to say anything rather than, which most reasonable people probably think, that he was being advised what to do either by PR people or, more likely in my view, his legal team.

If you read further down, did you see how dismissive of darts Collins is! He might not like the sport, and I don't play myself, but he is obviously looking down his nose at what is quite a popular sport. He also generalises about dart players and their supporters exactly the same as he generalises about football fans and culture.